A Fifth Dimension:Verifiability
This policy page provides an overview of the requirements for article sourcing. The test for information to be included in an article in A Fifth Dimension: The Twilight Zone Wiki is verifiability. What this means is that other readers are able to check for themselves that all content added to A Fifth Dimension (AFD) has been published by a reliable source. This is especially necessary for any material that is likely to be challenged or else the content may be removed. Less important is whether that published content is considered "true" by an editor. Although all content should strive to be considered both factual—in the sense of an undeniable truth (e.g., "Richard Matheson is a man.")—and verifiable, subjects with conflicting viewpoints should cover all viewpoints provided they originate for a reliable source. See neutral point of view for more information about the determination of facts. Burden of evidence When an editor adds content to an article, that editor bears the burden of evidence—meaning that the responsibility for the verifiability of the information rests with him or her to prove. All quotations, material that is controversial and material that is likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable source by providing an inline citation. It is essential that the source be clearly and thoroughly cited to allow readers the ability to find and recognize the text that supports the content in question. Common areas of caution include statements starting with generalizations, such as "Some people say..." or "One source stated..." or "It has been heard that..." which appear with no corresponding citation to provide answers to who said it, what source stated it, or where it has been heard. These are not valid sources on there own. Unless they can be sourced and preferrably rewritten to be more exact, such statements should be removed. Articles with no reliable third party sources, as with any matieral lacking a credible source, should be removed. When removing such content, it is important to provide a reason why in either the edit summary (so that it appears in the page history) or on the article's talk page. This allows other editors to understand your rationale and presents the opportunity to find reliable sources for the removed content, so that the material may be added back to the article. It is expected of all editors, before removing any content, to make a reasonable effort to find sources on one's own. If you find a statement in an article that you feel requires a souce to be added, you can tag a sentence with the template, a section with or the entire article with . If the material seems highly suspect, you may wish to just move it to the talk page with a note for evaluation and discussion of the content's verifiability. Any page using unsourced or poorly sourced—resulting from questionable, unreliable sources—that may damage the reputation of organizations or living persons should be immediately removed from articles and not moved to a talk page, due to the legal issues involved in defamatory or libelous comments. This can not only hurt the project but its users, including you. Evaluating sources Any material being considered for use in an article in AFD should have its source evaluated for its level of credibility. Reliable sources Reliable sources are necessary for the project for two reasons. Primarily, they offer substantiation for the material included in the articles in A Fifth Dimension. In addition, they provide adequate and proper credit to authors and publishers, which is not only appropriate but help to avoid situations of copyright violations and plagiarism. All articles should be based on reliable third-party sources with solid reputations for providing accurate information. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text. Common reliable sources include: * Peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses * University-level textbooks * Magazines published by respected publishing houses * Journals published by respected publishing houses * Books published by respected publishing houses * Mainstream newspapers, especially with global or national reknnown ** Information in editorials or opinion pieces is only valid as a statement of opinion from the editor or other author, rather than a statement of fact, and should be attributed as such in the article. ** Gossip or rumor columns may be used similarly, but rumors—with an increased likelihood of failing to be verifiable—are typically discouraged from being used in articles, while fine for news pages. * Electronic media that is similar to the criteria listed above may also be used As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is. See also: Neutral point of view Questionable sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. The use of such sources in articles is discouraged, unless the information can be verified through another more reliable source. Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: * Surprising or apparently important claims that are not covered by mainstream sources. * Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. * Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance. Questionable sources include: * Websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, fringe, or pseudo-academic (e.g., a critique of Rod Serling's work may vastly differ when in appearing in an anti-semitic zine rather than a journal devoted to the theater) * Websites and publications that are promotional in nature (e.g., information provided by an advertiser with a commercial stake in a flawless impression of a product can be considered less reliable than a review of the same product in a recognized peridiocal like Consumer Reports) * Websites and publications which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions (e.g., a message board posting about Harlan Ellison, ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative opinions, is far less credible as a source than a Time magazine article about the writer) Self-published sources The wide availablity of non-experts to create a website or have printed matter published generally disqualifies them as being considered reliable sources, although recongnizable experts that have previously been published in reliable sources may be used with caution to possible fringe theory motives. The use of self-published sources is especially discouraged as third-party sources about living persons, regardless of their author. Usable unreliable and self-published sources Questionable and self-published sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties. However, self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: # it is not unduly self-serving # it does not involve claims about third parties # it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject # there is no reason to doubt its authenticity # the article is not based primarily on such sources Wikipedia and other wiki The wiki is another form of self-publishing. For instance, even though many Wikipedia articles are written to an expert standard, it prides itself in being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and thus cannot verify that all—or any—of its articles are written solely by contributors that have been established in other reliable sources. Material from a wiki, if used, should be accompanied with any and all primary sources that appear listed for that source as notes or references. Substantial use of Wikipedia articles in articles here, at A Fifth Dimension, should be flagged using the template in the page footer. Eventually, we hope to rely very little on Wikipedia as a source of information and this flag helps us to keep track of those articles that rely heavily upon the online encyclopedia. Non-English sources English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages. This is in order to provide readers—most typically English-speaking as this is an English language wiki—an easy means of verifying the content of the article. Non-English sources sometimes can provide a unique perspective or additional information absent in English sources, however, and for this reason they are permitted to be used when an English equivalent is not available. When editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. See also: A Fifth Dimension:Babel project if you can help translate this wiki to other languages. See also * * * *